@Conservautism's banner p

Conservautism

Doubly Afraid of Change

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 23 18:45:23 UTC

I am actively attempting to deradicalize myself. I dislike puritanism and intolerance. DM me if you want my Discord, Twitter, Reddit, etc.

Verified Email

				

User ID: 1719

Conservautism

Doubly Afraid of Change

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 23 18:45:23 UTC

					

I am actively attempting to deradicalize myself. I dislike puritanism and intolerance. DM me if you want my Discord, Twitter, Reddit, etc.


					

User ID: 1719

Verified Email

Yes, another top level comment about The Origins of Woke from me, in the same thread on the same week. But this is about something else. I had an epiphany while reading the book.

I've wondered for many years why Marxism is more socially acceptable than racism when it's responsible for even more deaths than the Holocaust. It's because companies are (de facto) legally required to fire racists, but they're not required to fire Marxists. In fact, firing a Marxist for merely being Marxist would be illegal in California.

California has a state law against firing people for their political beliefs, but it didn't protect James Damore, who was fired in compliance with the law against creating a hostile work environment for protected groups.

It all adds up.

For the first time in my life, I'm starting to think we need childhood bullying. I am continually astonished by the cruelty of other people, often practiced under the pretense of standing up to bullies. It's like these people don't actually know what it's like to be on the other end. If they did, wouldn't they be more sympathetic?

So, what if we need childhood bullying to prevent adulthood bullying? Perhaps people need to learn at a young age how it feels to be a victim so they don't become the victimizer as an adult?

Of course, maybe being mistreated doesn't cause people to sympathize with others who are mistreated. But I've never seen anyone make this argument, at least prescriptively, so I figured I should, so I can see how people would argue against it.

The main argument against repealing the Civil Rights Act is that if people have the option to discriminate against racial minorities in jobs, housing, and school admissions, they will do so. In order to know if this is true, we would need to look at a country that has a similar racial mix to America, but no anti-discrimination laws, then compare the life outcomes of Africans or other historically oppressed groups in America to their life outcomes in that country.

Can anyone think of such a country to use as a test case?

I recently found out that France does not have anti-discrimination laws, but also that they don't collect data on race, so it might not be possible to use them as a comparison.

I'd like you guys to refrain from responding to this message (the one you are reading right now) unless you either are someone who holds the beliefs I am trying to engage with, or you can steelman how someone who holds those beliefs would respond to what I'm saying. Expressions of agreement are useless to me here. Thank you. (I have tried to get this discussion going on Twitter, but as one would expect, it hasn't worked.)

clears throat

So you, hypothetical person, believe that if a trans child has been on puberty blockers for the maximum of two years, then they should be allowed to switch over to HRT, even if they haven't reached the age of consent. So, for example, if a child starts blockers at age 12, then they should be able to switch over at age 14, even though the age of consent is no lower than 16 anywhere in the United States.

Why should the age of consent for HRT, the "real deal" of transitioning, be lower than the age of consent for sex? If you say that HRT is less harmful for children than sex with an adult, you need to be able to substantiate your claim.

Great post! Thank you!

The trilogy is complete.

This is the third time in my life that a professional pundit has made a shocking political transformation, I found out about it after the fact, and I'm left wondering how it happened. You'd think there'd be some drama YouTuber recapping these stories in a well-edited highlights reel, but it's all just spread out over many, many hours of streams.

First, it was shoe0nhead. I stopped paying attention to her completely after her feud with ShortFatOtaku, and then I heard about her getting involved with BreadTube (yuck) through Sargon of Akkad, and now she's... making really based tweets about current events that keep finding their way to me? I asked what happened, and people say she's not a socialist anymore and has a trad right boyfriend. I'd love to know how that last shift happened, because I've never seen someone go that far left and then pull back.

Then, it was Red Scare. I never paid attention to Red Scare, but I knew they were a sister act to Chapo Trap House and that prominent celebrities listened to the show, and I knew about the "Sailor Socialist" incident where the InfoWars reporter rudely accosted Dascha but asked totally reasonable questions, which Dascha responded to with dismissive quips, which meant she won in the eyes of the internet. Now the hosts are tradcaths, one of them got kicked off an HBO drama for being anti-woke, and they're doing right-wing tribal signalling. I don't know when or how that happened.

But now I just found out about the MOST INSANE one of all.

I remember the groyper wars from four years ago. The one good thing Nick Fuentes ever did. But the groypers lost, right? Covid killed all their momentum. This year, AFPAC died because Fuentes lost all his fans. Even the Kanye West bump didn't save him.

But today, on Twitter, I saw Charlie Kirk (rightfully) defending Elon Musks's statements on Da Jooze. In the replies, someone pointed out that over a month ago, he interviewed Steve Sailer on his podcast.

For one thing, I'm shocked that I didn't hear about this immediately when it happened. But also, HOW did it happen? Kirk's organization was blacklisting people who got near Unz or VDare.. heck, people who just admitted to reading them! He's part of Con Inc! Now he's okay with it? What changed? How did this happen? I thought the groypers lost! Was this a downstream effect of Musk taking over Twitter? How the heck???

Looking over at this post, I spent too much of this post talking about show and Red Scare. The reason I'm posting tonight is because I want to know if anyone understands why Kirk is suddenly breaking bread with the people who were his enemies just yesterday.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

A long time ago, we used to award internets for posts such as these. I don't know if I'm still qualified to issue an internet, but if I am, then you have won an internet, good sir.

The only way out is through de-escalation and the only permanent de-escalation is through formal legal recognition of Palestinians in the territories as full citizens in a democratic system. This might come from the establishment of a Palestinian state

Does Gaza not already count as a Palestinian state? Ignoring the blockade, they have sovereignty.

We are made of matter. Matter is not created or destroyed. It just changes form. Right now, for a brief moment in time, it has taken on a form that is self-aware. That's you. After you cease to be, where does your matter go? It goes everywhere. And because time is infinite, it will eventually reconnect. Every last atom. Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters, after all.

And if that is inevitable, it is also inevitable that your matter will take on a self-aware form again, eventually.

Reincarnation is real.

I want him to acknowledge the article and say that his views changed, but not grovel.

There is no straight reading of the Civil Rights Act and there hasn't been since 1979.

#4 hadn't occurred to me. I'm conflating the extremely online dissident right with anti-Semitism in general. As for b, I was making that assumption because they ostensibly share my goal of wanting to understand anti-Semitism, but they are richer, likely more well-educated, and do this as a job instead of a hobby.

That you see modern anti-Semitism and historical anti-Semitism as the same phenomenon rather than at least two distinct ones indicates that we're looking at the issue very differently. Racism, and tribalism in general, is a part of human nature, but they can be strengthened or weakened by one's environment.

(Just realized that I'm answering these points out of order, but I am multitasking.) I take people at face value in general until I've observed them enough to conclude that they're being deceptive. Maybe I'm being more charitable to the people I'm describing than I should because I relate to them. I share their grievances, but the difference is that I don't hold these grievances against Jews as a group, despite the explicit insistence that I should by the far right and the implicit insistence that i should by the progressive left.

God, I love you. This is why I come here. Thank you for writing this out.

I like this place, but I think it's gotten too right-dominated since the move from Reddit. I come here to be challenged by people to my left who are both smart and intellectually honest, a rare breed. The only other place where I could find them was the SSC Discord, and they permabanned me. (The adjacent servers also have a uniform rule to ban me if I ever talk politics.) So I'm stuck here regardless of my criticisms, but I wish it was leftier.

Anti-white racists (who aren't considered racist), yes. But do pro-white racists have a major impact?

I appreciate you as a dissenting voice, but I genuinely believe Hanania's upcoming book is the most important conservative book of the last 20 years and possibly the most important American book of the past decade. I can't afford for him to lose status because I can't afford for this book not to be a smashing success.

He's legitimately the only person who understands how to defeat wokeness. His career being terminated would be sad for him, but not an absolute disaster for the movement, so long as someone with a cleaner history is able to pick up his talking points and run with them.

But I fear that that won't happen. We've gone decades without mass opposition to Griggs or the other excesses of the Civil Rights Act forming. It could take decades for another influential figure like Hanania to pick up the torch. (Yes, I know about Caldwell, but he never reached the popularity of Hanania.)

Ignorant question, I know. I'm asking it because I'm ignorant and I don't know the answer, but I'm sure there is one, and I want to know it.

Why doesn't Israel just move everyone in Gaza to the West Bank while they do their bombings, then move them back to Gaza when they've destroyed the Hamas bases? Is there not enough room in the West Bank?

I didn't know about the curfews, or the freedom of movement. Could you tell me more about the freedom of movement? Are they not allowed to move throughout Gaza, or do you just mean that they can't leave Gaza? Because the latter is just sensible border policy.

Believe me, I'd read about this if I knew where to find reliable information.

If the United States thinks that the Palestinian authorities have a legitimate claim to Israeli territory, then why are we supporting Israel at all? If the United States thinks that they don't, then why aren't we bombing them back to the stone age as part of the war on terror?

This is a good quote. I'm gonna use it.

Interesting. But do they have doctrines that are equivalent to disparate impact or hostile workplace environment?

I see your point, but man, rightists sure loved getting involved with the less defensible J6ers.

Good argument. Thank you.

I've been agnostic, rather than atheist, for most of my life. My argument was that life is too complex, especially with how organs work, for there not to be someone planning it. I guess the best word for my beliefs would be deist, but I only learned the term recently.

Anyway, I just read an essay by Yudkowsky and I'm now convinced there is almost certainly no God. This depresses me because I want there to be a God.. which is to say, an unmoved mover at the beginning of time that is sentient. The idea that something at the beginning of time was unaffected by the rules of cause and effect is still plausible to me, but is there any reason left to assume it was sapient? I'd appreciate help with this, because I want to convince myself there may be a God.